frank case

1

Child and Youth Care and Legislation

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Date

Child and Youth Care and Legislation

Question 1

There are several child rights that were violated when frankie was under care. Some of these rights include; the right to express her own views freely and safely about the matters that were affecting her. It’s seen when she repeatedly told the staff person that she wanted to be known to her peers in the home as frankie, the staff person ignored her and continued calling her Fawzia her legal name. The other right that was violated was the right to be informed, in language suitable to her understanding of her rights under the parts. When frankie was brought into care she was given a form to sign. She found the information in the pamphlet difficult to understand and overwhelming. She wished her rights had been explained to her, along with the house rules and expectations as she was unclear what some of the information meant. The other right that was violated was the right to raise concerns or recommend changes with respect to the services provided or to be provided to her without interference or fear of coercion discrimination or reprisal and to receive a response to her concerns or the recommended changes. This is clear when frankie felt like her roommate was threatening her and she felt unsafe around her, she went ahead and reported to the staff that she felt threatened but the staff did not appear to be concerned, no action was taken and instead they dismissed her worries by telling her to ignore the comments The other right that was violated was the right to be engaged through an honest and respectful dialog about how and why decisions affecting her are made and to have her views given due weight in accordance to her age and maturity. It’s seen when frankie asked the staff to order vegetarian or even plain cheese pizza, but when they forgot and she reminded them, she was told that she could just remove the pepperoni and bacon from the pizza. When she indicated honestly that she does not eat the meat due to religious reasons staff told her that she does not have to eat and did not offer any other meal. The other right that frankie had that was violated was the right to be consulted on the nature of the service provided or to be provided to her, to participate in the decisions about the service provided and to be advised on the decisions made in respect to the services provided. It’s clearly violated when Frankie struggled to adjust her lack of privacy. Twice, she could tell her letters from her grandfather had been opened before they were given to her but assumed the staff members were doing this because they wanted to help her. She just wished they had asked her what she needed. She also noticed that some of her staffs were missing and when she raised her concerns to the staff they reminded her that she had signed a form stating that the program was not responsible for the missing items. It is telling that Frankie "was told" that there were no other placement options as opposed to Frankie being offered the chance to discuss her concerns with her worker and work alongside her worker to come to the best decision for all involved. The CYFSA explicitly states, in Part 2/Section 8/Subsections A-F, that young people have the right to be involved in the decision-making process and have their opinions weighted equally as adults in the room.

Part 5/Section 83/Subsection B of the CYFSA lists when, why, and how a young person can be removed from a CAPS residence without a warrant from a Justice of the Peace that is to say if the young person’s health or safety is at risk. In most cases, this exclusively means bringing the young person into the care of a medical professional. In this case, it happens to be a publicly-funded hospital. Psychiatric evaluations have issues unto themselves that would affect Frankie's chances of receiving holistic care. To make things even more difficult for Frankie, the staff members from Birchwood House have not been attentive to Frankie's changing psychological conditions. Cisgender, trans*women and non-binary feminine persons have some of the highest rates of misdiagnosed mental illness. Being unable to share detailed information only increases the chances. Second, Frankie may not understand that her rights in CAPS care are different, if only slightly, from the rights of a psychiatric patient under the Mental Health Act.

Question 2

I feel each of the stated right was a violation to Meadow for the following reasons; each and every person has the right to express their own views freely and safely about matters affecting them without being judged harshly or assumed; Frankie was not given that right. Also, the other right that was violated the right to be informed, in language suitable to someone’s understanding; when Frankie got into the care she was given a form to sign without being explained what it was all about since to her she found it difficult to understand. The other right which appeared to be violated was the right to raise concerns or recommend changes; whenever Frankie raised a concern or a recommendation she was neglected and ignored by the staff . The other right that felt like a violation was the right to engage through an honest and respectful dialog about how and why a decision affecting her was made; when she told the staff about being a vegetarian she was honest and wanted them to understand that it’s because of religious reasons but instead they ignored her and let her suit herself. The other right was violated the right to be consulted on the nature of the service provided or to be provided to her. It’s clear since the staff did not respect her privacy by opening the mails sent to her by her grandmother. People should have the right and the freedom to do what they want without having the feeling of being threatened and diminished hence I feel that the above rights of Frankie were violated. As for Frankie’s residence options, even if there are no other residence options when she inquires, Frankie should have the opportunity to review different CAPS residences so if a place should open at one of them. Frankie can make an informed decision as opposed to discovering options moments before a decision must be made. Staff members should have this information available for any young person in the residence.

Moving on to Frankie’s move from Birchwood House to the hospital. While bringing Frankie to the hospital will ultimately help her, the process of going, being admitted, and being psychiatrically assessed is traumatic. It is unreasonable to expect Frankie to be utterly open to psychiatric care, especially since the staff members cannot share applicable information with doctors or nurses due to their neglect. The hospital cannot be a place of safety if Frankie is misdiagnosed, which can lead to mistreatment (as in prescribing an anti-depressant if Frankie does not suffer from depression. It is well-documented that anti-depressants increase suicidality in people under the age of 25.

Question 3

There are several things that I would have done differently to ensure Frankie’s rights were respected. On the right to express her own views freely and safely about the matters that were affecting her, I would ensure that I call her by the name she wants and ensure her fellow mates call her by that name too so that she can feel comfortable. On the right to be informed, in language suitable to her understanding of her rights under the parts, I would have explained to her widely what the form entails so that she can understand before signing the form. On the right to raise concerns or recommend changes with respect to the services provided or to be provided to her, I would have followed up the concern of feeling unsafe with her roommate and if it’s true I would have taken the necessary measures to change her situation . On the right to be engaged through an honest and respectful dialog about how and why decisions affecting her are made and to have her views, I would respected the fact that she is a vegetarian and offered an alternative meal that she feels comfortable with. On the right to be consulted on the nature of the service provided or to be provided to her, I would have respected her privacy by not opening the letters from her grandmother.

For both Part 2/Section 8/Subsections A-F and Section 5/Section 83/Subsection B, the authors wrote hypothetical dialog included below:

· Part 2/Section 8/Subsections A-F:

· “We have information about other CAPS residences and your rights in the plastic case on my office door. If you need any other information, let me know, and I will get it to you.”

· Part 5/Section 83/Subsection B:

· “Frankie, I am concerned about your safety, so we are going to go to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or CAMH on Queen Street East. At the hospital, you’ll speak with nurses and doctors. During those conversations, I will step out of the room for a short while so you can speak to the doctor alone. I will share a few of the changes I have noticed in you these past few weeks with the doctor. Meadow, I want you to remember that you, and only you, are the expert on you, not me, not the nurse, not the doctor, not anybody.”

Question 4

The Mental Health Act covers when, why, and how a person can lose their autonomy for a temporary period, in most cases because a person may hurt themselves or end their life. While persons under 16, legally, do not have any autonomy to take away, it is integral that Child and Youth Care Practitioners understand this piece of legislation. The Act spells out the rights of a person on a Form 1 (up to a 72-hour psychiatric hold) or a Form 3 (up to a two-week psychiatric hold). A person on a Form 3 can speak with an advocate from the Blah Blah Blah Office and contest their psychiatric hold. In metropolitan areas like the Golden Horseshoe, there are paediatric psychiatric wards. However, in suburban and rural areas, a young person will likely be admitted to an adult psychiatric ward, except in dire cases. In such scenarios, a Child and Youth Practitioner (or another adult) often stays with the young person in the hospital to ensure safety.

Second, The Social Work and Social Services Act does not technically apply to Child and Youth Care Practitioners. However, while we build our own governing body and legislation, this provides relevant information and regulations for similar caring professions. There is much to learn from the mistakes of others, especially as it concerns the welfare of children. Additionally, no CYC-P alone. CYC-Ps must understand what legislation governs other professions, like social workers and social services workers.